Why are you compering him to Trump? Why do you need to defend such person. Road to the hell is paved with good intentions.

This ban was long overdue. Are some people more equal than others?

I may be downvoted here for this statement but that is just some site on the internet. I may be banned from Twitter that is also just another site. Actually was banned from r/Conservative, so what?

Facebook/Twitter are problems because many things, but banning someone for roaring the masses is not one of them.

And arguments like: 'But who is deciding what is hate speech?' seems to me just like fallacy here. Because we have concrete example of spreading misinformation and roaring people in order to undermine civic society. This has already led to violence. 'What if' is just taking away attention from what has already been done.

> In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns...

Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.

The primary stated American reason to have guns isnt't personal self defense - it's to prevent governmental tyranny.

Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.

> He could easily obtain a hunting rifle.

Maybe that is the problem. Can he really buy hunting rifle without license?

There are lot of comments like: 'I do not support him but...'.

I'm not from the US so will use example from my country.

I do not mind if my prime minister was banned from Facebook even though I'm ok with him (didn't vote for him, but we have more than two parties).Facebook is just some private company for me. It is monopoly in a way and pain that most of my social circle is locked there. But for any public figure? There is public broadcaster. It already is not good that he is not using his PR team that much.

You have put too much power in to the hands of private companies. Public broadcaster can be (and often is) misused for propaganda of ruling government. But so can be private one (and often is). But at least there is stil this balance of public/private spaces.

But I know this is irrelevant in the USA which tries to implement some utopias (like free speech) but others are considered as immanentization of the eschaton.

What I think more common is that head of the state is not a priori directly broadcasting through account on private page. What is quite common is public broadcaster.